'Nuclear option' expected after Democrats filibuster Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I doubt that there will be a time within the next century where there will be bipartisan agreement in DC.

Ideologies have become so polarized, that this is just the first shot in what will be a very long and drawn out ideological war.

Agree.. the next step is to lower the threshold of passing a bill to 51 votes. Matter of time, because absolutely nothing will get passed in the current climate outside of budget reconciliation.

There is no middle ground anymore, the only route to get anything done is on a partisan basis, so America will have to decide on whether it goes down a conservative route or a socialist route.

a reply to: UKTruth

Or there will be some sort of war that makes us all remember that we really don't want to go down this route.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: carewemust
About time Republicans show some REAL backbone!

When it gets down to the jiggy ... this is a vote for the RINOs.

I'll chalk it up as a win for the Government and the New World Order.

Does this mean we another "chief" of justice to ignore all the injustice in the world?

I am afraid so. These people who comprise the government need to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

I don't know when the SCOTUS went all-in-political, but it's time for a re-set.

Gorsuch looks to be the opposite of that.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I doubt that there will be a time within the next century where there will be bipartisan agreement in DC.

Ideologies have become so polarized, that this is just the first shot in what will be a very long and drawn out ideological war.

Agree.. the next step is to lower the threshold of passing a bill to 51 votes. Matter of time, because absolutely nothing will get passed in the current climate outside of budget reconciliation.

There is no middle ground anymore, the only route to get anything done is on a partisan basis, so America will have to decide on whether it goes down a conservative route or a socialist route.

Actually "the option" does lower the threshhold. OH it ALSO reduces the time for debate to 8 hrs instead of 30.

Th epeople saying this is unprecedented are not remembering the days before the rule was passed. its not destroying the constitution.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

The SCOTUS has always been political in nature, regardless of whatever "blind justice" nonsense narrative we've been sold. It has never been apolitical, and it's naive to think it ever could be.

I'm all for Trump stacking the court with people who are as opposed to CTRL-Left ideology as possible.

He won't--he's far too "liberal" (pudbeat) for that--so don't anyone worry.

You'll still be able to kill your babies if you want to kill your babies when all is said and done.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: carewemust
About time Republicans show some REAL backbone!

When it gets down to the jiggy ... this is a vote for the RINOs.

I'll chalk it up as a win for the Government and the New World Order.

Does this mean we another "chief" of justice to ignore all the injustice in the world?

I am afraid so. These people who comprise the government need to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

I don't know when the SCOTUS went all-in-political, but it's time for a re-set.

Gorsuch looks to be the opposite of that.

I hope you're right, but he just looks less readable than the others. Remember how surprised we were with what Roberts did?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes but it depends on the exact legislation. Budget related measures only require 50. That's why health care was written the way it was too only need 50

a reply to: Snarl

Considering last time Gorsuch was voted in unaminously, even Schumer voted for him, I would say he is as bipartisan as possible.

When will these silly hypocrites realize the crap they spew on the internet is forever?

a reply to: introvert

It's the principal of the thing. That seat should be garlands. I don't care about gorusch one way or the other, but that seat was stolen.

a reply to: Aazadan

Why should it be Garland's? Although I think they probably should have at least given him the formality of a rejection through a full Senate vote, its not like he's the first Supreme Court nominee to be rejected by the Senate. They were not obligated to confirm him.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I doubt that there will be a time within the next century where there will be bipartisan agreement in DC.

Ideologies have become so polarized, that this is just the first shot in what will be a very long and drawn out ideological war.

Agree.. the next step is to lower the threshold of passing a bill to 51 votes. Matter of time, because absolutely nothing will get passed in the current climate outside of budget reconciliation.

There is no middle ground anymore, the only route to get anything done is on a partisan basis, so America will have to decide on whether it goes down a conservative route or a socialist route.

Actually "the option" does lower the threshhold. OH it ALSO reduces the time for debate to 8 hrs instead of 30.

Th epeople saying this is unprecedented are not remembering the days before the rule was passed. its not destroying the constitution.

This is the crux of the issue here. The Constitution doesn't specify how many votes will be needed to confirm nominations. That is determined by the Senate. If people don't like that, they need to push for an amendment. End of discussion. Democrats are crying in their own cereal on this one, and most of us aren't falling for it.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Aazadan

Why should it be Garland's? Although I think they probably should have at least given him the formality of a rejection through a full Senate vote, its not like he's the first Supreme Court nominee to be rejected by the Senate. They were not obligated to confirm him.

That's true, but if it didn't go to Garland, it still should have gone to someone Obama appointed. Even Trump agreed with this statement in the debates. What I was trying to get at is that the seat was stolen. I disagree with how the Democrats and the Republicans are handling the situation too, but I suppose it is what it is. There's plenty of wrong to go around, and very little right. The whole situation really just makes me sick. A stolen SCOTUS seat, changing the Senate rules to a simple majority, justifying that because of the rules being implemented in the previous Senate.

Everyone involved is acting like a bunch of spoiled children.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I laughed at you on ATS..........well, its because you are funny.

I am glad the Republicans finally grew a pair, now both parties have a matching set.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Aazadan

Why should it be Garland's? Although I think they probably should have at least given him the formality of a rejection through a full Senate vote, its not like he's the first Supreme Court nominee to be rejected by the Senate. They were not obligated to confirm him.

That's true, but if it didn't go to Garland, it still should have gone to someone Obama appointed. Even Trump agreed with this statement in the debates. What I was trying to get at is that the seat was stolen. I disagree with how the Democrats and the Republicans are handling the situation too, but I suppose it is what it is. There's plenty of wrong to go around, and very little right. The whole situation really just makes me sick. A stolen SCOTUS seat, changing the Senate rules to a simple majority, justifying that because of the rules being implemented in the previous Senate.

Everyone involved is acting like a bunch of spoiled children.

All you Really Care about is a SCTOUS with a Majority of Left Leaning Judges who will go Out of their Way to Not Uphold the Constitution , but Reinterpret it to a Point where American Citizens Freedoms Guaranteed by it Will Fall by the Wayside in the Name of a Socialistic Liberalism which will Attack Free Speech , National Security , The Right to Privacy , Gun Ownership , The Rights of the Unborn , and Religious Liberty .The Majority of the American People Elected President Trump to Thwart that Attempt at Undermining the Nation through the use of the Supreme Court to Forward that Agenda . Not Happening Now .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

What the hell are you talking about?

a reply to: Aazadan

" That's true, but if it didn't go to Garland, it still should have gone to someone Obama appointed. "



Isn't it Obvious ?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

so many fallacies its hard to keep up, speaking non sense at the speed of light.

lets do first one was it a liberal president that attacks any media he doesnt like, doesnt sound like free speech.

does russian spies in the white house sound like a good national security policy?

does Trump selling your internet history sound like right to privacy?

does allowing the mentally challenged to buy guns sound like good gun control?

rights for the unborn doesnt even make sense

we already have religious liberty

but hell, we really need the nuclear option...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Aazadan

" That's true, but if it didn't go to Garland, it still should have gone to someone Obama appointed. "



Isn't it Obvious ?

Well 14 minutes ago they just used the option.

nancy pelos: and thats is how our dreams die..to thundering applause.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

so many fallacies its hard to keep up, speaking non sense at the speed of light.

lets do first one was it a liberal president that attacks any media he doesnt like, doesnt sound like free speech.

does russian spies in the white house sound like a good national security policy?

does Trump selling your internet history sound like right to privacy?

does allowing the mentally challenged to buy guns sound like good gun control?

rights for the unborn doesnt even make sense

we already have religious liberty

but hell, we really need the nuclear option...

1. trump only attacked after they started it. There is no playing victim here.

2. Trump himself has not been proven to been influenced by russia. if he is then his handler sucks because he isnt removing sanctions.
3. trump himself is not selling your Internet browsing history. Google and all other ISP's have been doing that for years via tracking cookies.
4. some mentally challenged people are more adept at handling a gun than alot of non challenged. Its a RIGHT. the second does not state anything about your mental state.
5.If it does not have a heartbeat yet it should not be covered I agree,but as soon as it does too late youre stuck with it unless its life threatening.
6. agree.